Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Elisiist Aldent
Underground Coalition
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 09:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
Since these things have come out. I have yet to see one put to use. It just seems that the range vs restrictions of the module makes it almost useless.. Most combat (outside FW/Plexes) occus on a gate or a station. The anchoring restriction place it 75km off a gate, with only 100km range.
Since these only have a 1hr lifespan I see no reason that they shouldn't be allowed to inhibit cynos from being lit anywhere on the same grid as it, OR reduce the tank of the module and reduce the anchoring distance for stargates.. This would make putting the module on a gate a risky thing (Risk vs Reward right?) since it offers a gate camp better protection from a hot drop, but makes the module susceptible to a "hero... something" coming through the gate, popping the module allowing someone to light the cyno.
Or an off the wall idea I heard was to allow Hictors a module/script that has the same effect but can be activated on top of a gate/station.. but really this topic is more so about the mobile structure.
|
Odithia
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
60
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 09:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
I agree, their stats are way too weak for their price point. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
280
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 10:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'd love to see them usable on gates.
Eve is meant to be about risk/reward. What risk is there in a brick tanked cyno bait ship? I don't think the "risk" of people not engaging should count. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1754
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 10:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
Agreed. Also, the other deployables need their EHP increasing so they can be used in combat. +1 |
w3ak3stl1nk
Hedion University
81
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 13:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
Cyno beacon or jumping should be 150 km in random direction. Adding some chaos to the jump process. Is that my two cents or yours? |
Rammel Kas
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 14:01:00 -
[6] - Quote
Er... nope. They work just fine if you're trying to discourage hot droppers. Those big fish don't give a hoot about gates. In fact super caps don't use gates. And Black Ops don't ever want to make it easy for you to reach them when they are uncloaked. Sure you could jump gate with smaller capitals. But why would they take a fight if you're just going to use gate mechanics to get away?
I think someone else mentioned you can use conventional bubbles instead or HIC points instead?
|
Bohneik Itohn
Universal Freelance CONSORTIUM UNIVERSALIS
721
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 14:43:00 -
[7] - Quote
Rammel Kas wrote:Er... nope. They work just fine if you're trying to discourage hot droppers. Those big fish don't give a hoot about gates. In fact super caps don't use gates. And Black Ops don't ever want to make it easy for you to reach them when they are uncloaked. Sure you could jump gate with smaller capitals. But why would they take a fight if you're just going to use gate mechanics to get away?
I think someone else mentioned you can use conventional bubbles instead or HIC points instead?
You're kind of missing the point. One of the best uses for the deployable is to encourage sub-cap fights. If you're not going to get hot-dropped on, you're more willing to engage. If you're in hostile territory with an enemy sub-cap fleet on grid and a rando-Dan Maller somewhere on D-scan, is it fight or flight time?
Yeah... And a good portion of those sub-cap fights happen within close proximity of gates, stations, etc... Not because people want to flee but because that is one of the most convenient places to catch anyone trying to maneuver for a better place to control the engagement and force a conclusion. Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!-á - Freyya
Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
282
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 14:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
Rammel Kas wrote:Er... nope. They work just fine if you're trying to discourage hot droppers. Those big fish don't give a hoot about gates. In fact super caps don't use gates. And Black Ops don't ever want to make it easy for you to reach them when they are uncloaked. Sure you could jump gate with smaller capitals. But why would they take a fight if you're just going to use gate mechanics to get away?
I think someone else mentioned you can use conventional bubbles instead or HIC points instead?
Tell you what, go tackle that T3 flown by a cynosural field theory pilot on a gate.
Let me know how that goes for you. |
Yun Kuai
Justified Chaos
180
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 17:10:00 -
[9] - Quote
Elisiist Aldent wrote:Since these things have come out. I have yet to see one put to use. It just seems that the range vs restrictions of the module makes it almost useless.. Most combat (outside FW/Plexes) occus on a gate or a station. The anchoring restriction place it 75km off a gate, with only 100km range.
Since these only have a 1hr lifespan I see no reason that they shouldn't be allowed to inhibit cynos from being lit anywhere on the same grid as it, OR reduce the tank of the module and reduce the anchoring distance for stargates.. This would make putting the module on a gate a risky thing (Risk vs Reward right?) since it offers a gate camp better protection from a hot drop, but makes the module susceptible to a "hero... something" coming through the gate, popping the module allowing someone to light the cyno.
Or an off the wall idea I heard was to allow Hictors a module/script that has the same effect but can be activated on top of a gate/station.. but really this topic is more so about the mobile structure.
Instead of changing where they can be placed, make it so a mobile cyno inhibitor instead scatters the incoming capital ship or bridge. Make it a quantity algorithm, the more the mass(?) the more variation in jump range up to the 100km blocking range of the inhibitor. Past a certain mass (or random value bc that's more fun) the variation spreads to system wide so a fleet may be scattered all over the system (only at things like planets, moons, gates, sun,etc). This means cyno hot drops became a skills based challenge vs the current I win button. It also means fleets are spread out around the grid (or off it) making triage carriers potentially be 100km off the fleet
Ignore covert cynos due to advanced electronics of recons and bombers, giving them one more reason to be see in space. --------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::------- |
Jacid
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
57
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 23:15:00 -
[10] - Quote
Worth a bump.. its a good point why can't you anchor cyno disruption mods on gates. It would make them useful compared to what they are now...
|
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
733
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 23:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
I've seen them used quite a bit in a couple of situations:
Carrier ganks to control backup arrival in escalating fights.
Defensive use by POS bashing fleets to give themselves some extra buffer to escape or employ other strategic manoeuvring if someone drops a fleet in on them mid bash. |
Elisiist Aldent
Underground Coalition
3
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 05:42:00 -
[12] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote:Instead of changing where they can be placed, make it so a mobile cyno inhibitor instead scatters the incoming capital ship or bridge. Make it a quantity algorithm, the more the mass(?) the more variation in jump range up to the 100km blocking range of the inhibitor. Past a certain mass (or random value bc that's more fun) the variation spreads to system wide so a fleet may be scattered all over the system (only at things like planets, moons, gates, sun,etc). This means cyno hot drops became a skills based challenge vs the current I win button. It also means fleets are spread out around the grid (or off it) making triage carriers potentially be 100km off the fleet Ignore covert cynos due to advanced electronics of recons and bombers, giving them one more reason to be see in space.
That would play out to the hot droppers advantage wouldn't it? Wouldn't they want the larger ships to land at range from the cyno? Also, what's a 100 km to a dread or carrier? Heck what's 200 km to most of them? Also cov ops cynos are already exempt from the mobile structure. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
5967
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 06:11:00 -
[13] - Quote
Honestly... the only change needed to the mobile cyno inhibitor is for the anchoring time to be radically reduced.... like... by half or more.
Most of the major fights I have been in flare up faster than you can anchor one of these things... and are sometimes over just as quick because some nameless alt with a cyno just happened to be nearby.
Consequently... the only time I have seen it worthwhile to drop a cyno inhibitor is when doing structure bashing.
I would be willing to accept lower HP as a tradeoff for the quicker anchor time though. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?" |
Aivlis Eldelbar
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
17
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 09:57:00 -
[14] - Quote
+1
Cyno mechanics in general could use some fleshing out.
I like the scatter mechanic: the code is in place, they are even working on mass-based scatter right now, so all the more reason to implement it. Make inhibitors have optimal + falloff, so they completely inhibit cynos close in and scatter farther out ones. Make the scatter significant enough to make ships land out of logi range, even if it means off grid.
Ii would also be nice to have meta versions of the inhibitor, with faster online, less active time, or cheaper but of less range. Diversity of choice is one of the pillars of EVE after all. |
Yun Kuai
Justified Chaos
182
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 17:05:00 -
[15] - Quote
Elisiist Aldent wrote:Yun Kuai wrote:Instead of changing where they can be placed, make it so a mobile cyno inhibitor instead scatters the incoming capital ship or bridge. Make it a quantity algorithm, the more the mass(?) the more variation in jump range up to the 100km blocking range of the inhibitor. Past a certain mass (or random value bc that's more fun) the variation spreads to system wide so a fleet may be scattered all over the system (only at things like planets, moons, gates, sun,etc). This means cyno hot drops became a skills based challenge vs the current I win button. It also means fleets are spread out around the grid (or off it) making triage carriers potentially be 100km off the fleet Ignore covert cynos due to advanced electronics of recons and bombers, giving them one more reason to be see in space. That would play out to the hot droppers advantage wouldn't it? Wouldn't they want the larger ships to land at range from the cyno? Also, what's a 100 km to a dread or carrier? Heck what's 200 km to most of them? Also cov ops cynos are already exempt from the mobile structure.
Not really, most people hot drop because they instantly spawn an overwhelming force, i.e. Bridging a gank fleeting or dropping triage carrier reps, directly at 0 on the target. As someon mentioned above, triage carrier reps reach out to 54km, which means if your carrier reaches the maximum 100km range then it's essentially out of the fight in terms of logistics until it can warp off and come back (silly but it might happen) or your fleet flies the 40+km over towards the carrier to get back into rep range. It gives people getting dropped on a little more flexibility and makes the aggressor have to be more tactical in their attempt to gank you.
As for the part about people being loaded off grid at celestials, I'd like to clarify more. The idea is after "X modifier" passes through the cyno then people are dispersed throughout the system. It would mean dropping fleets or moving capitals could potentially end up with a carrier at the sun or half the logi on the other star gate that's 45au across the system. It gives the defender a high advantage, yes,if 2/3 triage carriers are suddenly sitting at the sun and it gives 3rd parties a chance to disrupt fights and ninja some kills on the poor souls who got spawned in the asteroid belt and tackled by the rats in his Naga
But anyways, the key here is for CCP is to this system on a random cycle so that it can't be gamed when jumping into a mobile cyno inhibitor. When a cyno goes up a random number generator cycles and that determines what effect will happen in addition to the "X modifier". Making the "X modifier" be random each time also means the system can't be gamed. So the "X modifier" has 5 different keys, the inhibitor has 10 levels of ranges (0-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, sun, belt, gate, station, planet ), and add a percentage modifier that helps randomize the chances of each happening. Now you have a system that can't be gamed as it's always changing and it always spices up the "hot drop" with a few more elements of risk.
--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::------- |
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
288
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 17:23:00 -
[16] - Quote
I think the cyno inhibitor is fine as it is provided they introduced a new anchorable....
Cynosural Mobile Desynchronizer
Instead of stopping cynos from being lit, it causes any ship to use the cyno to appear somewhere randomly on the entire grid. It should work on all cynos including Blops.
The price point should be lower then the inhibitor since it does not actually stop a cyno. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012. |
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 17:26:00 -
[17] - Quote
Elisiist Aldent wrote:Since these things have come out. I have yet to see one put to use.
I see them all the time. Pretty standard to bring some with you in medium/large gang fights. Can save your arse as it gives you some range against incoming and a few extra seconds to GTFO, especially where the risk of a drop is high.
|
Adrie Atticus
The Shadow Plague The Bastion
233
|
Posted - 2014.08.24 12:28:00 -
[18] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:I think the cyno inhibitor is fine as it is provided they introduced a new anchorable....
Cynosural Mobile Desynchronizer
Instead of stopping cynos from being lit, it causes any ship to use the cyno to appear somewhere randomly on the entire grid. It should work on all cynos including Blops.
The price point should be lower then the inhibitor since it does not actually stop a cyno.
That actually counters one big tool for defenders: bomber squads. If you get your whole BS fleet safely spread around the grid after a bridge, get only a few of them hit by bombers instead of all 200, then MJD into a single pack, yell "APEEEEEEEX FOOOOORCE" in local and blap whatever was on grid. |
Yun Kuai
Justified Chaos
182
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 01:03:00 -
[19] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Hopelesshobo wrote:I think the cyno inhibitor is fine as it is provided they introduced a new anchorable....
Cynosural Mobile Desynchronizer
Instead of stopping cynos from being lit, it causes any ship to use the cyno to appear somewhere randomly on the entire grid. It should work on all cynos including Blops.
The price point should be lower then the inhibitor since it does not actually stop a cyno. That actually counters one big tool for defenders: bomber squads. If you get your whole BS fleet safely spread around the grid after a bridge, get only a few of them hit by bombers instead of all 200, then MJD into a single pack, yell "APEEEEEEEX FOOOOORCE" in local and blap whatever was on grid.
Okay so you wait for them to MJD into a single pack and then bomb them? And I would consider having a fleet of BS at ranges from 0-100kmn spread out randomly a bad thing or if you read what I mentioned about over a "X modifier" the ships now get scattered within the cyno and to random celestials. The few unlucky guys to be on the outskirts are going to ganked by the standard fleet due to being completely separated. --------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::------- |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
148
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 03:43:00 -
[20] - Quote
I've seen them used a few times, usually when dreads are bashing a tower and dont want supers dropped on their heads. they sit just inside the range and are in an out before they can be dropped or anyone thinks to tackle and cyno then warp in. But i do agree they need to be changed if theyre going to see wide spread use.
Oh i've also seen them anchored in sites and belts to allow carriers and supers to rat in relative safety in deep nullsec. but these ontop of the gates being bubbled caged may be a bit much. Is it bad if your friend says "that was a Metaphor" and you say "Meta 4? Get Tech II or faction" ?I love the sound of silent explosions in Space.-á |
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2804
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 05:03:00 -
[21] - Quote
activation time is far too long IMO. Restricts it for defensive use only which makes it quite boring.
The volume is also a bit big for no good reason. eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Elisiist Aldent
Underground Coalition
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 03:20:00 -
[22] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:activation time is far too long IMO. Restricts it for defensive use only which makes it quite boring.
The volume is also a bit big for no good reason.
I think the activation time is ok. That feels balanced. It's the ranges that feel off. Honestly I feel that they should be hancorable at 0 to gate, but 25 would be a fair minimum.
I don't know why anyone would want to light a cyno next to a gate outside pvp... JCs I guess? |
Quesa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
28
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 11:42:00 -
[23] - Quote
I would be okay with reducing the minimum distance you can anchor them next to gates/pos's/stations to 50k and maybe within 150k of another inhib but the range and EHP are fine. They are incredibly powerful, small enough for most ships to carry and anchor relatively fast.
I've used and combated these deployables extensively and if anything, they seem a bit too powerful in how fast they can be anchored. |
Elisiist Aldent
Underground Coalition
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 13:00:00 -
[24] - Quote
Quesa wrote:I would be okay with reducing the minimum distance you can anchor them next to gates/pos's/stations to 50k and maybe within 150k of another inhib but the range and EHP are fine. They are incredibly powerful, small enough for most ships to carry and anchor relatively fast. I've used and combated these deployables extensively and if anything, they seem a bit too powerful in how fast they can be anchored. These deployables were never meant to be used as grid-wide area denials of cyno's nor where they meant to endure throughout an entire battle. They were more meant to give a slight buffer/defense to those more static fleets, such as sieging dreads, than denying the use of capitals on a grid. Additionally, "this structure prevents all normal cynosural fields (but not covert cynosural fields) from activating within 100km. This allows groups of players to shield themselves from hotdrops, control how their opponents can deploy capital ships", not fully deny. They are also designed in this way: "The Cynosural Inhibitor has been tuned to be most useful to small and medium gangs, as the vast majority of its 160,000 effective hitpoints come from structure rather than shield or armor. This ensures that large fleets of logistics or capital ships cannot keep the structure alive under large scale fire. " There IS value in using these modules, those that have used them or had them used against them know that. Any real buff of these modules will likely make them overpowered. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/better-living-through-mobile-structures/
by range i meant anchor range to gates and stations.
|
Quesa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
30
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 19:56:00 -
[25] - Quote
Elisiist Aldent wrote:Quesa wrote:I would be okay with reducing the minimum distance you can anchor them next to gates/pos's/stations to 50k and maybe within 150k of another inhib but the range and EHP are fine. They are incredibly powerful, small enough for most ships to carry and anchor relatively fast. I've used and combated these deployables extensively and if anything, they seem a bit too powerful in how fast they can be anchored. These deployables were never meant to be used as grid-wide area denials of cyno's nor where they meant to endure throughout an entire battle. They were more meant to give a slight buffer/defense to those more static fleets, such as sieging dreads, than denying the use of capitals on a grid. Additionally, "this structure prevents all normal cynosural fields (but not covert cynosural fields) from activating within 100km. This allows groups of players to shield themselves from hotdrops, control how their opponents can deploy capital ships", not fully deny. They are also designed in this way: "The Cynosural Inhibitor has been tuned to be most useful to small and medium gangs, as the vast majority of its 160,000 effective hitpoints come from structure rather than shield or armor. This ensures that large fleets of logistics or capital ships cannot keep the structure alive under large scale fire. " There IS value in using these modules, those that have used them or had them used against them know that. Any real buff of these modules will likely make them overpowered. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/better-living-through-mobile-structures/ by range i meant anchor range to gates and stations.
Maybe you skipped the first sentence? |
Kell Braugh
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 19:15:00 -
[26] - Quote
What is the rationale for not having them be system wide? Is asking for a sub-capital force to remove it too great for the super-centric null bunnies? Especially if they were changed to be structure HP focused to effectively deny real time repping them I don't see how they aren't a valid counter against blobing supers doing all the heavy lifting. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |